In-flight Girth
Note: edited because I’m an insensitive dick (see the comments). I’m leaving the original text behind as a reminder.
There’s an article on news.com.au today about a survey where the majority of respondents believe that fat people should be forced to pay extra or pay for a second seat when travelling on airplanes.
From personal experience, I can certainly agree with that. I flew from Perth to Melbourne a couple of years ago sitting next to a really fat guy, so fat that his fat roll sat on top of the armrest between us. The ultimate invasion of personal space, I couldn’t avoid occasional contact with his clammy, pasty flesh. Yuk. (Edit) The guy was ultra-obese(?) — I would guess 200kg.
The best part was that I couldn’t access my armrest controls for the radio and in-flight film without physically lifting up his fat roll (something I wasn’t game to do) so I had to spend the whole flight in silence staring straight ahead, trying not to think about the clammy flesh next to me.
(Edit) Unfunny attempt at humour: For me the only question is how to decide who pays what. From that horrible experience I would suggest a tape measure around the middle would be sufficient, and anybody over a certain girth has to pay extra for a wider or second seat. Or maybe they can all be put in one section of the plane together, so they can press up against each other. None of them would be able to access their controls, so it would be the quietest part of the plane. At least they’d have something in common to talk about. You could even target specific advertising (Jenny Craig, Subway, The Biggest Loser) at that section of the plane.
(Edit) Should’ve mentioned that I expect the same thing to apply for tall folks (like me: 6′3″) who want more legroom.
But while we’re there — let’s take it further: what about weight? Is it fair that someone who weighs 160kg has the same baggage allowance as someone who weighs 60kg? Definitely not. When you check in for your flight, immediately after running a tape measure around your middle, they should put you on the scales along with your baggage, and your excess baggage can be calculated including the excess baggage you’re carrying around your middle. (Edit) Should’ve mentioned that I’m carrying approximately 30kg of excess baggage around my middle, and am therefore on the good side of this deal and acknowledge that it’s unfair.
(Edit) And again: I think the best part is that people would be extra-motivated to put down the cheeseburger and start looking after themselves once they’ve been measured up a few times at the check-in desk.
Update:
I think we need some new terminology. I just checked, and my 6′3″ and 120kg labels me as “obese” (BMI of 33.0). You’ll get no argument from me that I’m fat1 but I’m certainly not in the league of that guy who’s fat rolls sit on top of the armrests in economy class. I’m only about 110cm around the middle.
When I was originally writing this post I had the word “obese” in my head, but since I can fit entirely between the armrests I guess I was really thinking of “ultra-obese”? I don’t know. Maybe a BMI of 33.0 can be distributed differently? I’m still sincere about my desire for everybody to be able to fit between their armrests — and to have sufficient legroom — because it’s unpleasant for everybody otherwise. And in general I’m an advocate of user-pays (yep, I vote Liberal) which should hopefully explain how I got started on the whole idea of pay by weight and size.
- I’ve been taking steps to counter that — 2.2kms in the pool on Monday and back there again tonight [back]
␄
December 12th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I find your comments offensive. And I’m a good friend! God you can be a tosser sometimes!
December 12th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Dood, you touched my fat rolls plenty of times, and there were no complaints. Whats the difference on a plane?
On a serious note, I disagree. I’m a big guy, and when I fly my damn knees touch the chair infront if I don’t sit up 100% straight. And if I sit up straight, then my shoulders sit above that sliding headrest, meaning I’ve got something in my back/shoulderblades all flight. Whilst the fact the guy next to you was hanging over the seat, all he did was point out that the damn seats are too small to begin with.
Although given your options, it might be easier to cure the world of obesity than get the airlines to put in bigger seats.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Yeah, that’s true.
Who’s at fault for me not being able to use my controls when I’m sitting next to the fat guy?
(1) Me.
(2) Him.
(3) The Airline for not offering a different option for seating.
In my post I’m choosing option (3), though I probably should’ve used more smileys to indicate I wasn’t really serious about tape measures at check-in. I *am* serious about different seating options based on size & weight though.
I’m 120kg and 6′3″ tall. If there was an option where I could pay for extra legroom — that wasn’t as much as upgrading to business class of course — then I’d be happy to buy that in a second. My legs go numb after 4 hours in cattle class. I usually try and get to the airport an hour earlier than I need so I can get myself into an exit row, so in a sense I am already paying for what I need (paying with time).
And I do think it’s unfair that someone who weighs 60kg less than me doesn’t get 60kg more of excess baggage. For the time being I’m on the good side of that equation, but I certainly concede that it’s unfair.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Hmmm. But by saying that fat people should pay more you’re really saying it’s (2) His fault/responsibility, not (3) The airline’s.
If it’s the airline’s fault then appropriate solutions would be bigger seats, providing a range of seat sizes etc. Not size-based pricing, which puts everything back on the passenger.
And I don’t really get the link between a person’s weight and luggage limits? If anything it should be related to how long you’re going away for… or at least that’s what I thought when packing for our 2 month trip last year!
December 12th, 2007 at 8:10 am
More smileys? The WHOLE ARTICLE was offensive towards obese people! It’s entirely in poor taste!
If you’re saying it’s the airline’s fault for providing insufficient options for seating, what’s the point of the cheeseburger comment in your summary paragraph? Or the “clammy flesh” and “fat roll” comments?
If you’re segregating obese people into their own part of the plane, would you have a section for muslims and a section for gay people too? You see where I’m heading.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am
> Hmmm. But by saying that fat people should pay
> more you’re really saying it’s
> (2) His fault/responsibility, not
> (3) The airline’s.
I was *trying* to say that people who need more space should be able to pay for it — fat, tall, wide, or whatever. It’s certainly not my fault that I’m 6′3″, but I’d like the option of paying for another 5cm of legroom. I expect many fat people would like the option of paying for extra 5cm of seat width.
> And I don’t really get the link between a
> person’s weight and luggage limits?
I’m not sure how else to explain it. You’re supposed to pay excess baggage to make up for the weight of stuff you’re carrying (for fuel) so if I’m already heavier than someone else including their baggage then I’ve got an unfair advantage.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:26 am
> More smileys? The WHOLE ARTICLE was offensive
> towards obese people! It’s entirely in poor
> taste!
That’s true. I’ll leave it here so people can see that I’m a dick. I sabotaged a serious point by making flippant jokes (cheeseburgers, Jenny Craig).
> Or the “clammy flesh†and “fat roll†comments?
That was an accurate description of what I experienced. His flesh was clammy. His fat roll was (literally) on top of my controls.
> If you’re segregating obese people into their
> own part of the plane, would you have a section
> for muslims and a section for gay people too?
> You see where I’m heading.
Yeah, I see where you’re heading, but I don’t get how it’s relevant. I’m not sure how sitting next to someone who’s gay or muslim inconveniences the person sitting next to them, but I’m open to explanation for that.
I stand by the fact that I’m in favour of sections of the plane with wider seating (at an additional cost) for those that want it and other sections of the plane with more legroom (also at an additional cost) for people who want it (e.g.: me). I certainly don’t mind being segregated if it means I’m more comfortable. And I’m sure the guy who sits in front of me who no longer has my kness in his back would appreciate it too.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:32 am
It turns out the airlines are already doing what I’m suggesting (buy a slightly more expensive ticket with more space) in the US at least:
https://www.unitedpromotions.com/epahome/control/epaHome
And you can buy the extra space at the gate for less than business class if you fly AirTran (from $40 — I’d pay that):
http://www.airtran.com/business_class.aspx
December 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
>> And I don’t really get the link between a
>> person’s weight and luggage limits?
>
>I’m not sure how else to explain it. You’re
>supposed to pay excess baggage to make up for
>the weight of stuff you’re carrying (for fuel)
>so if I’m already heavier than someone else
>including their baggage then I’ve got an unfair
>advantage.
But is it that simple (I’m serious… I don’t pretend to know the answer)? Is the fuel/financial/engineering/aero-dynamics/safety implications of 100kg person + 20kg baggage the same as a 60kg person + 60kg baggage? I wouldn’t have thought so - that is more complicated than just the total weight of the plane and instead is (at least partially) to do with the distribution of that weight? I could be totally wrong of course! I have a contact in Qantas… I’ll have to ask.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:04 am
>I stand by the fact that I’m in favour of
>sections of the plane with wider seating
>(at an additional cost) for those that want
>it and other sections of the plane with more
>legroom (also at an additional cost) for
>people who want it (e.g.: me).
“those who want it” - does that mean that you would make it optional (again, serious question, I’m not (intending to be) faecetious)?
So what if a large passenger chooses to not take up the option? Your neighbour could have bought two adjoining seats to give himself more room, but he didn’t. If he turned down the option of a larger seat and you were again seated next to him, we’re back at the beginning again…
Out of curiousity - were there any empty seats on the plane and did you ask to be moved? Chris and I asked to be moved on a flight once (for different reasons) and were accommodated. This was on a long haul international flight so that may have contributed to their willingness to agree - I wonder how receptive they are to requests like that on shorter flights?
December 12th, 2007 at 9:06 am
That’s the way it was always explained to me: you pay extra for the extra fuel your stuff is burning. My understanding is that the passenger weight is based upon an average, and I’m assuming they do it that way because it’s not feasible to literally weigh every passenger — both for logistical reasons and also because lots of people would be offended.
*If* that’s true (and I really have no idea whether it is or not) then I was suggesting that they don’t use an average and make it “fair” for everybody.
Clearly a dumb idea and I should’ve kept my mouth shut.
I remember Dallas and Tracy saying to me a couple of years ago (back in the fatcaterpillar days) that the whole personal website thing is insipid, narcissistic and dangerous. I guess that was a pretty good advice.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:15 am
> “those who want it†- does that mean that you
> would make it optional
… and thus proving that poorly considered ideas spoken in ill-considered jest fall apart under the lightest scrutiny.
> Out of curiousity - were there any empty seats
> on the plane and did you ask to be moved?
Yeah, I asked and there were no extra seats. It was a peak-period Virgin flight from Melbourne to Perth. The whole experience had particular effect on me because it was in the middle of my assignment in Hong Kong, so I’d been taking a lot of business class flights with Skybeds. Economy class was bad enough, but then to have this fat guy taking up part of that space was icing on the cake.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
[...] Yesterday at lunchtime I read that article about fat people on planes and decided to write some stuff about it here. I wanted to share my experience of sitting next to a really fat guy on a plane, but clearly I [...]
December 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
What’s all the fuss about? Obese people are largely obese through choice, you certainly are not tall by choice.
If someone exceeds the size of their seat and encroaches on your space, you have every right to complain about it.
The airlines do provide seats with more space - it’s called business class.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
[...] on from those previous discussions: The rules have changed in Canada. From today, all Canadian Airlines have to stop [...]